ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

2,

1976

COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT, et al.,

Complainants,

V.

)

PCB 75—443

HARRY A. CARLSON and DONALD F. KREGER, d/b/a

SOUTH SUBURBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., and the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondents,

)

and

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Intervenors.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

Subsequent to the entry of our Interim Order of October 14,

1976 in this matter, which Order granted,

sua sponte,

leave for

Complainants to amend their Complaint,

Complainants filed

a Motion

for Stay on November 12,

1976.

Complainants base this Motion on

the pendency in the Circuit Court of Cook County of a Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Respondents here,

the

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals,

and this Board.

Respondent Carison filed a Response in opposition to Complainants’

Motion on November 17,

1976.

That Response renews Respondents’

Motion to Dismiss.

Intervenors People of the State of Illinois filed a Response

in opposition

to Complainants’ Motion

on November

22,

1976.

That

Response

aryues

that

inasmuch

as the above Circui.t

Court

action was

initiated

by Complainants, grant of any stay of the instant proceedings

based on the pendency of that action would

“trivialize

the jurisdiction

of the Board,” rewarding Complainants’

“forum shopping.”

Intervenors People of the State of Illinois also move for leave

to withdraw as Intervenors and, based on the Board’s Order of

October

14, 1976,

further argue that the entire proceeding should

be dismissed.

24 —321

---

—2—

Intervenors also note that Complainants’ Notion for Stay does

not indicate service on all parties

(in particular, Respondent

F nvi

nnren~al

Pr

tection

Agency

~ierinq

it

defective

ir its

enti.~:tv

and

wit:~out

effect.

We agree

with

the

latter

contention.

Procedural

Rule

308(a)

specifically requires service on

all

parties.

We are not presented

with any compelling reason to waive that requirement.

As noted by

Respondent Carison, cause 76 L 18994, Committee, ~et~ai;.,.v.

Carison,

et al.,

is pending at Complainants’ election

~t1e~c:a:~e~w

filed

subsequent

to the entry of the Board’s October

14, 1976 Order

Although this Board has previously held that ju~Isdic?idñ in matters

involving administrative review of Agency-issued permits

lies with

the Board, we cannot coerce prosecution in this forum.

Complainants

retain

the option of attempting judicial enforcement of rights under

the Environmental Protection Act.

But exercise of that option when

Complainants are already before this Board cannot provide cause for

a stay, when Complainants request that a stay be granted

to prevent

a multiplicity of action and a duplication of effort.

Complainants

have chosen their

forum:

the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Our October 14,

1976 Order noted

(at p.

3)

that the Complaint

in this matter

is not “sufficiently specific to state a cause of

action

independent

of the allegation that the Agency gave no

consideration

to land use,

etc.”

(Emphasis

in original.)

We

allowed time for amendment to correct that lack of specificity.

Inasmuch as Complainants have failed to timely file an Amended

Complaint

or otherwise correct existing defects

in the Complaint,

and

have chosen to prosecute their claim in another

forum, Complainants’

Motion for Stay must be dismissed,

and Respondents’

Motion for

Dismissal of the case shall be granted.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Mr.

James

Younq

abstained.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Order

was

adopted

on

the

day

of

December,

1976,

by

a

vote

of

-

Christan

L.

Moffett~~1erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

24

—